Armed Forces: Ethnic Minority Recruits

Lord Drayson: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Don Touhig) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	A key aim of the Armed Forces' diversity policy is that they should become more representative of the society they serve. The intention is that by 2013 the proportion of ethnic minority personnel serving in the Armed Forces should broadly reflect UK society (ie, around 8 per cent of personnel should come from ethnic minority backgrounds).
	To achieve this will require sustained effort, building on the achievements of recent years to ensure that the Armed Forces attract personnel from the rich UK ethnic minority talent pool. As an integral part of this strategy, the Armed Forces have set a further round of annual UK ethnic minority recruiting goals from financial year 2006–07 for the next five years at 0.5 per cent above the previous year's achievement for each service, or rolling forward the previous year's target where this would provide a greater challenge. This means that in the financial year 2006–07 the goals will be for the Royal Navy to recruit approximately 3.5 per cent of intake from ethnic minorities, the Army approximately 4.3 per cent and the RAF approximately 3.6 per cent.

Child Protection: IMPACT Programme

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My right honourable friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Hazel Blears) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The IMPACT programme, a key element of our work to deliver Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations following the murders in Soham, has already delivered some significant benefits to the police service, most notably the IMPACT nominal index (INI). For the longer term, we have a very clear vision of what the programme is planning to deliver.
	The programme is now in a strong position to deliver a range of capabilities to the police service which will not only meet Sir Michael's recommendations but transform the service's ability to protect the communities it serves.
	IMPACT will deliver a programme of technology-enabled business change for the police service which will:
	discharge our commitment to implementing the relevant recommendations in Sir Michael Bichard's report following the Soham murders;
	enable the delivery of improvements in police performance, producing substantial benefits through increasing numbers of crimes prevented and detected, and by bringing more offenders to justice;
	increase police operational efficiency, driving out considerable savings annually in direct benefits; and
	deliver a replacement for the police national computer (PNC).
	The delivery of the IMPACT nominal index (INI) in December 2005 responded to the second of Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations: police officers can now establish whether any other force in England and Wales may have information on individuals of interest to them. However, the system does not give direct access to the records themselves, and the next stage is to develop a national information-sharing infrastructure which will make operational information visible to forces across the country, transcending force and system boundaries.
	The work will build on the achievements already delivered by the programme, providing a modular and incremental approach comprising the following stages:
	the continued deployment of the INI to forces in England and Wales during 2006, initially expanding within child abuse investigation units, then into other selected business areas including some non-Home Office forces and central agencies. This will be accompanied by some limited further development, to improve its functionality;
	during 2006, the continued development within police forces of the capability to extract data from their local force databases in a common format (the cross-regional information-sharing project—CRISP—data schema), enabling the data to be shared with other forces and partner agencies through data warehouses;
	completion of the development of the CRISP software, as the basis for:
	deploying to each force in England and Wales from the middle of 2007, an interim data-warehousing capability which will enable information from systems serving their eight main operational business areas to be retrieved by a single query; leading to:
	a national data-sharing capability (a police national database) available to all forces in England and Wales and delivering the full benefits described above by early 2010.
	Officers will be able to search for information on specific people, objects, locations and events to inform operational decision-making, or to use the national data as a resource for producing intelligence products prescribed by the national intelligence model (NIM). The programme will also link the information contained on the current PNC, and other national systems, to force-level information.
	Business processes will be optimised through an associated programme of business change based on the NIM; the code of practice and associated guidance on the management of police information (MoPI); and procedures developed within the programme.
	This programme of work will be delivered using a managed service based on existing and planned criminal justice system (CJS) exchange shared services developed by Criminal Justice IT (CJIT). This offers the potential to exploit the new technology being piloted by CJIT and to re-use existing CJS exchange components.
	The use of the CJS exchange will provide other criminal justice organisations with continued access to PNC data, and the delivery channels to populate the central system with data from outside the police service. The IMPACT programme will continue to retain responsibility for delivering the programme with a strong business lead and a sharp focus on driving out the benefits.
	In order to realise the potential benefits from the programme, it will be managed alongside other related developments:
	the programme to create strategic forces, including by force amalgamations, to improve the police service's capacity to deliver level 2 protective services;
	the framework of police performance measures managed by the Home Office, which incentivise chief officers to give the appropriate measure of priority to tackling level 2 crime;
	the ACPO level 2 crime programme, which aims to enhance the police operational capability at the supra-force level; and
	will support the following key stakeholders:
	chief officers directly, by demonstrating the extent to which they can reduce the risk to the reputation of their forces by exploiting the opportunities offered by the IMPACT solutions;
	police authorities, by demonstrating the savings and efficiency gains in prospect; and
	HMIC, by supporting and strengthening monitoring and compliance measures developed by the programme.
	While the police national database is under development, resources have been allocated to enable the police IT organisation to update the hardware platform of the PNC. This will ensure that the PNC remains fit for purpose until the police national database is fully in service.

Clinical Trials

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Minister of State (Jane Kennedy) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
	On 16 March I informed the House of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency's suspension on 14 March 2006 of the phase 1 clinical trial for a drug in development known as TGN1412. As well as suspending the trial and alerting international regulatory authorities, the MHRA initiated an immediate investigation into the incident. On 5 April the MHRA announced its interim findings. This, and associated documents, are available on the MHRA website.
	To date, the MHRA has found no evidence to suggest that there was any problem with the manufacture of the product. It does not appear to have been contaminated, or to have contained anything other than the correct ingredients. Neither did the MHRA find any problems with the administration of the clinical trial which is likely to have contributed to the incident. It was run according to the agreed protocol and the correct dose of the product was given to the patients.
	There are still further tests which the MHRA is carrying out to confirm these findings. However, if those findings are confirmed, it would indicate that there was something particular about this product and its mode of operation in humans which led to the adverse reactions in this case, and which was not predicted in the pre-clinical research carried out on the drug, including animal tests.
	The product in question is a very specific kind of human monoclonal antibody, and it is essential now to understand what this incident reveals about the underlying science, and how clinical trials involving these types of products should be managed and authorised in the future. The Secretary of State has therefore agreed to the establishment of an expert working group to address these questions. She has appointed Professor Gordon Duff to chair the expert group. It will start work as soon as possible and provide advice to Ministers. We have asked for an interim report in three months.
	It is important to stress that clinical trials in general have an extremely high safety record. It is the unprecedented nature of this incident that makes it all the more important to learn the lessons from this incident and prevent a recurrence. At the same time, the progress of clinical trials for other types of product which are vital to patient care must not be impeded.
	This clinical trial was conducted by a contract research organisation and not by, or within, the NHS. I would, however, like to pay special tribute to the staff of the Northwick Park hospital, and particularly those in the intensive care unit, for their exceptional work in dealing with the aftermath of the trial and saving all the participants' lives.
	I will provide a further report to the House when the expert group provides its interim report. In the mean time, until the expert group provides advice, the MHRA is adopting a precautionary approach to the authorisation of trials involving products of this kind, and will not authorise trials without having received expert advice on whether the effects seen in the TGN1412 case may be repeated in relation to those substances.

Housing and Regeneration

Baroness Andrews: My honourable friend the Minister of Communities and Local Government has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today announcing a review of the institutional structures for delivery of housing and regeneration.
	Achieving mixed, sustainable communities in the 21st century is a key government priority. These are communities that meet the needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment and contribute to a high quality of life. The Government have a role in not only articulating their vision for the future, but putting in place the mechanisms which turn the vision into a reality.
	To date, successful programmes led by English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation have made an important contribution in achieving the Government's ambitions. At the start of March we approved the Housing Corporation's latest programme, which will see almost £4 billion of public resources being allocated and 84,000 new affordable rented and low-cost home-ownership homes delivered in the next two years. In the year to March, English Partnerships exceeded the previous year's outturn in respect of housing starts on sites commissioned, housing completions, employment floor-space and private sector investment. English Partnerships has also been successful in the acquisition of former public sector sites, including 98 former NHS hospitals and the Oakington barracks in South Cambridgeshire, which will provide an additional 10,000 new homes.
	However, housing and regeneration activities are changing and becoming more closely integrated. The Government's response to the Barker review of housing supply, the growth in non-registered social landlord investment, the strategic housing role of local authorities, developing mixed, sustainable communities and helping registered social landlords flourish as social business are demanding and fast-moving agendas. We need to ensure that our delivery agencies have the right tools, the critical mass they need to deliver and the right structures to respond to these challenges.
	As we move towards creating genuinely mixed, sustainable communities throughout England, we know that we will require even greater focus and skill in the future. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister and I have asked for this review. It will not only look at the existing activities of the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships, but consider more widely how we can bring innovative solutions to the range of challenges we face. The review will consider the best way of organising national delivery mechanisms to maximise the use of private investment, public subsidy and land holdings, and assets funded by past public investment, to support the delivery of new homes and mixed, sustainable communities. The Deputy Prime Minister and I expect to be in a position to announce initial findings of the review in the summer.

Immigration: South Africa

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My honourable friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Tony McNulty) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government are committed to maintaining effective immigration controls while at the same time ensuring that genuine passengers are able to pass through our ports with the least possible inconvenience.
	The UK will stop accepting South African temporary passports with effect from today. This decision has been taken due to concerns over the effectiveness of the South African passport-issuing process and the impact that has on our immigration controls.
	Fraudulently obtained South African passports are regularly encountered at UK ports, held by a wide variety of nationalities. The South African temporary passport, which is issued pending the issue of a full South African passport, poses a particular problem as fewer checks are carried out prior to issue. In our opinion, the temporary passport does not satisfactorily establish identity or nationality/citizenship or is in compliance with international passport practice. As a consequence there is intelligence to suggest that these passports provide an easy target for those with other nationalities who seek to come to the UK illegally.
	This decision will not prevent South African nationals coming to the UK, but will require them to obtain a full South African passport before coming here.
	Transitional arrangements will apply to those who already hold SA temporary passports obtained on or before 19 April. Those travellers who purchased tickets prior to 19 April will be able to travel on their temporary passports to the UK before 1 June; those who purchase an airline ticket after the announcement but before 10 May will be able to travel to the UK on their temporary passport, providing they arrive in the UK before 10 May; and those who purchase an airline ticket following 19 April for travel between 10 and 31 May can travel to the UK before 1 June provided they have first secured a visa for entry to the UK. This will ensure that anyone with plans to visit the UK will be able to do so or will have time to secure a new full South African passport.

Northern Ireland

Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Peter Hain) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	Further to my oral Statement to the House yesterday, copies of the joint statement made by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in Armagh on 6 April have been placed in the Libraries of the House, as have the associated speeches they delivered that day.
	The Prime Minister's speech was as follows:
	"So the moment comes, as we always knew it would, for the ultimate decision. On Tuesday, we had a reminder of the past: an horrific, bloody murder. It represented all we have sought to escape from, these past nine years.
	Today we have the possibility of deciding, over the next nine months, to make the future work.
	Go back to the core of this issue for a moment—and it's never wise to prolong this in the politics of Northern Ireland—recall the history. We are here in the island of Ireland that has been riven by strife between British and Irish for centuries.
	In the early part of the last century, it was eventually partitioned. The larger part became the Republic of Ireland. The rest stayed part of the UK. But the struggle continued within that part: one tradition wanting a united Ireland; the other to remain in the UK; one predominately Catholic; the other predominately Protestant.
	For decades up to 1998, the issue was marked by conflict, often of the most brutal kind. Politics here in Northern Ireland were divided not on the basis of ordinary political philosophy but on the core issue. Perpetual attempts were made to break out of this constraint but none with lasting success. The brutality continued.
	Why did we manage to reach agreement in April 1998 on a basis to settle the struggle? Of course, there were acts of courageous political leadership. Of course, painstaking negotiation, often creatively deployed, allowed us to unravel knots of discord. Of course, the advent of new Governments and the pressure of the world to grasp resolution, played their part.
	But what determined it, was something different and more profound. The people understood the futility of the status quo. They looked at the world around them, changing rapidly as the millennium drew to a close and realised that they were in danger of being left behind; that the way this struggle was being conducted was indeed brutal and bloody but most of all, it was unbearably old-fashioned, out of date, pointless. No-one was ever going to 'win'. 'Winning' in the sense of the unionists driven by bombs and terror into a united Ireland; or in the case of republican and nationalist sentiment cowed into accepting partition: was simply never going to happen.
	The people, without necessarily articulating it in quite this way, understood it and empowered the politicians to move forward.
	The basis of the GFA was actually one of mutual respect for a difference of view. Each tradition accepted the other had a right to think and feel differently. One had a right to believe in a united Ireland; the other to believe in the United Kingdom. Both had legitimacy. But neither could be pursued without the consent of the people, freely given.
	The idea was then to make politics take the strain of resolving the issues of concern to the people in Northern Ireland within that framework of mutually acknowledged difference.
	The GFA was a massive achievement. If it was naive ever to think that, by it, all could be resolved with relative ease, then it is fair to say that perhaps only naivety could have emboldened us to aim so high; and without such ambition, we would have achieved nothing.
	What has happened subsequently is an object lesson in all conflict resolution. I have dealt with all sides now for almost a decade. The problem is that agreements such as the GFA can provide procedures, mechanisms and laws. What they can't do is enforce a belief in the other's good faith. That can't be forced. It can only come through genuine conviction.
	Essentially, in the eight years since the GFA, that has been the issue. Of course it has manifested itself in endless wrangles over the procedures, mechanisms and laws. But the true problem has been that each side has believed in its own good faith but doubted that of the other. Naturally, most of the time, everyone has doubted the good faith of the Governments!
	So unionism has often thought that republicanism was adopting a series of tactics in the name of peace; but its strategy was in reality still one of physical violence to circumvent the principle of consent. Republicanism believed it was making the most mighty moves to set aside the past and that unionism was only interested in peace not equality, and without equality there could be no proper peace.
	Each side wanted certainty before moving. Each side's uncertainty of the other's certainty led to more uncertainty.
	In October 2002, I asked for acts of completion. The ambiguity had to end.
	Negotiation followed negotiation, the most recent intensive bout in December 2004. But then came the Northern Bank robbery and the McCartney murder, and uncertainty again set in. In July last year, the IRA announced its armed struggle was at an end. That was a move of huge significance. However, those earlier events still cast their pall. But now I feel, after months of desultory discussion, there is a renewed willingness to break the deadlock uncertainty has imposed.
	How can this now be done? How can we make the ultimate decision?
	We have today set out a framework beginning with the recall of the Assembly on 15 May; but running up to November of this year for the ultimate decision to be made. At that point we close the chapter or close the book.
	The details are set out in the joint statement.
	But once again, it won't be the details that settle this. This is a framework that only works if the parties choose to use it for proof of good faith, not to themselves and their own community but to the community of the other.
	Unionism has to show republican and nationalist sentiment that it is serious about its commitment to share power; serious about equality; and serious about its recognition that republicanism has indeed changed and its leadership taken real and verifiable risks for peace. When, as will happen, dissident elements opposed to all we jointly seek to achieve, try to disrupt by the methods of the past, unionism must play its part, in refusing to give those elements a veto over democracy.
	Republicanism has to address the unionist community in a way that recognises that though of course there may be those within unionism that hanker after the old days, the mainstream of unionism is very clear: it is worried that violence is still in the culture of republicanism and will reassert itself, but does indeed want to put the past behind it and share power if it can be convinced it is doing so on a shared basis of democratic belief. So when the law is broken, then republicans should play their part in bringing those who break it to account and support the police in doing so.
	Above all, this is a moment to let the process be governed not by suspicion but by the faith that the other does want this to succeed. I don't say suspicions will not still be there. Just don't let them prevail, to the exclusion of the basic truth: people do want this to work.
	In Northern Ireland over the coming years, crucial decisions will be taken on the economy, health, schools, local government. Is it not more sensible that they are taken by the directly elected representatives of the people those decisions will affect, not by direct rule?
	The IMC will continue its work. It has said unequivocally that the IRA no longer poses a terrorist threat. That must be recognised for the vast leap forward it is. But there are real issues about criminality and normal policing, accepted as legitimate on all sides, with criminals pursued whatever their political allegiances, would go a long way towards convincing people that culture and attitude had changed decisively.
	There is ample scope to find agreement if that is what people want. But be in no doubt. At the conclusion of this period, we either resolve to go forward on the basis of mature democracy or we call time on this and seek another way to go. Two things must be understood. There can be no room for compromise or ambiguity on the commitment only to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Political argument is the only means of persuasion. That was set out clearly in the Belfast Harbour speech and remains.
	On the other hand, however, there can be no way forward that does not recognise the legitimate aspiration of nationalists and republicans for a united Ireland; and give expression to it, through partnership, north and south.
	In other words, the essence of the GFA, is valid. The question is: do the political parties in Northern Ireland lead its implementation or do the two Governments, perforce have to step into the breach? Stasis is not an option. The option is whether the dynamic is driven by a hale and healthy democratic mandate derived from the people or by a necessarily more rigid will imposed from outside. We, the two Governments, can't exercise that option. Only the people and parties in Northern Ireland can.
	So the coming months will see a decision taken. One concluding thought: if it was a sense of the futility of the past and a desire to be part of the future, that has taken us this far; reflect please on how much more relevant that sense and that desire is today. Look at Britain and Ireland. Today, we are allies. Today we engage in common purpose in a new Europe. Today our rivalry is found in a healthy competition for which economy is more vibrant. Today there is a confidence and vitality in our relationship that has enabled us, after almost 70 or 80 years of mistrust, to work together to carry this process forward. And do so not as surrogate leaders of warring tribes, but as friends.
	Today also Northern Ireland has seen more peace, stability and progress than was ever imaginable 10 years ago. Getting to here has taken many painful decisions. But in any process there is always the ultimate decision. It is yours to take.
	You, the leaders here, have a far harder task than us. You have lived with the past, not just contemplated it. But now you and the people you represent have the power to decide. I ask you to use it wisely".

Patent Office Executive Agency: Performance Targets 2006–07

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I have tasked the Patent Office with managing and shaping an intellectual property system which encourages innovation and creativity, balances the needs of rights holders and the public, promotes strong and competitive markets and provides a firm foundation for the knowledge-based economy. During the coming year, the Patent Office will remodel itself and form partnerships through which new services will be delivered, to provide a Patent Office which meets the needs of the 21st century.
	I have also set the Patent Office the following targets for 2006–07:
	Patents
	Issue 90 per cent of patent search reports within four months of request.
	Grant 90 per cent of patents within two and a half years of request.
	Give good customer service in patent search and examination in 95 per cent of quality assured cases.
	Trade-Marks
	Register 90 per cent of processed trade-mark class applications, to which no substantive objections are raised or oppositions filed, within eight months of application.
	Make the correct decision on registrability for at least 98.5 per cent of trade-mark applications.
	To dispose of all trade-marks inter partes cases within three years, achieving at least 30 per cent within one year and at least 70 per cent in two years.
	Designs
	To examine 95 per cent of all design applications within three months.
	Policy/Awareness
	Adoption of our educational resource, THINK Kit version II in UK secondary schools—with not less than 80 per cent penetration.
	Efficiency Targets
	Reduce total current expenditure on the operations of the trading fund compared with the baseline of the corporate plan 2004–05, in line with the DTI's published efficiency technical note. Cumulative savings target for 2005–06 and 2006–07 is £2.3 million.
	Customer Service Standards
	Meet our customer service standards as reported in the annual report and on our website at www.patent.gov.uk.
	Finance
	Pay 100 per cent of bills within 30 days of receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is the later.
	Questions delegated to the chief executive
	Reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated for chief executive's reply.

Pensions: Occupational

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Pensions Reform (Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In the autumn of 2005 we issued the draft Occupational Pensions Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2006 for consultation. One of the proposals in the draft regulations was a new requirement that an annual benefit statement should be issued automatically to everyone in non-money purchase pension schemes, including deferred members and pension credit members.
	Representations were made in the consultation that there was no need for the statements to be issued automatically to deferred members and pension credit members, as the information contained therein would not change year on year. While it is useful to remind people regularly about their pension entitlement, we have been persuaded that the burden of issuing automatic statements to deferred and pension credit members would be disproportionate.
	The proposed requirement to provide automatic statements to active scheme members will remain. Additionally the current provision, which requires that relevant information must be provided to deferred and pension credit members on request, will be carried forward into the new regulations. Although it will not be mandatory for non-money purchase pension schemes to provide deferred and pension credit members with an automatic annual statement, schemes may wish to provide this information on a voluntary basis. Many already provide this helpful facility.
	A full response to the consultation will be published with the final regulations. The regulations will come into effect from October 2006, although the annual benefit statement changes are applicable only for scheme years ending on or after 6 April 2007.